Guest Editor: Dr. Erik Juergensmeyer Special Issue: The Rhetoric of Agitation and Protest
Download 1.8 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Keywords
Volume 9, Issue 1 March 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction—Rhetoric and Activism: Opportunities for Influencing Public Thought and Action Author: Erik Juergensmeyer Title: Associate Professor of Composition and Rhetoric Affiliation: Fort Lewis College
Rhetoric has a rich history with advocacy and engagement in public discourse. Grounded in Aristotle’s On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (1991), rhetoric has evolved from the ‘ability to identify the available means of persuasion in any given situation’ to include a wide range of symbolic strategies for influencing public thought and action. This expansion has also occurred with rhetoric’s companion discipline of composition. As an offshoot of rhetoric, composition studies has experienced several “public turns,” solidifying its connection to public discourse (McComiskey, 2000; Mathieu, 2005; Welch, 2008; Scott, 2009). Combined, these fields of study put forth scholarship and work that forward rhetorics of activism (Ackerman & Coogan, 2010; Berlin, 1987; Cushman, 1996; Goldblatt, 2008; Grabill, 2011; Flower, 2008; Kahn & Lee, 2011, Moore & Goldberg, 2015; Rhetoricians for Peace, etc.). Within peace and conflict studies, rhetoric is showing itself as a worthy participant in the conversations. Several excellent works explicitly demonstrate how rhetoric contributes to peace and conflict (Bowers, Ochs, Jensen, & Schulz, 2010; Hodges, 2015; Stewart, Smith, & Denton, 2012, etc.), and many more continue to implicitly establish this connection (see disciplinary conversations on argumentation, civic engagement, contact zones, critical pedagogy, democracy, human rights, literacy, public spheres, service-learning, etc.). Most often in these studies, rhetoric appears as a set of theoretical, analytical, and productive arts that demonstrate how symbolic interactions can motivate action and/or effect change. Theoretically, rhetoric offers ways to understand the interplay between dialogue and dialectic as they relate to peace talks, humanitarian missions, conflict resolution, etc. Theories from Classical rhetoric to Enlightenment to the new rhetorics focus on rhetoric as knowledge-making activity that helps speakers develop ideas as well as communicate them. For example, social theories of rhetorical invention abet conflict resolvers as they seek mutual gains (e.g. Lloyd-Jones, 2003; Juergensmeyer, 2011). And, Classical theories of ethics provide grounding for contemporary sites of activist intervention (e.g. Weaver, 1953/1985; Hasbrook, 2011). Both of these applications seek to improve upon existing practices by providing foundations for effective public engagement. Analytically, rhetoric provides frameworks for understanding persuasive appeals and discursive strategies in order to deconstruct a variety of peace-and-war-related artifacts and propaganda. For example, Kenneth Burke’s foundational work (1945/1969, 1950/1969) explaining how rhetors seek to identify with each other in order to resolve conflict continues to provide methods for understanding and improving communication. And, more focused discourse analyses can help peace and conflict practitioners construct narratives supporting positive peace in direct response to divisive, confrontational positions (e.g. Brown, 2009; Dunmire, 2013). Encompassing a broad application of rhetoric to public discourse, varying iterations of rhetorical criticism offer conflict resolvers and activists detailed insights on rhetorics of communication and conflict. And, productively, rhetoric offers concrete strategies for producing effective communication. Often categorized under areas of the ‘rhetorical canon’ (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery), numerous heuristics exist to guide rhetors through written, oral, and visual discourse. Further developing these applications are numerous approaches to crafting messages. For example, methods of utilizing intertextuality and adapting conventions of discourse communities empower rhetors with means for adopting effective communicative tools (e.g. Porter, 1986; Toulmin, 2003). And, genre awareness and framing strategies empower rhetors with concrete skills to adapt to varying genres (e.g. Del Gandio, 2008; Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010). For activists and the increasing amount of intergovernmental and nonprofit organizations that seek to enact change, the productive arts of rhetoric help contextualize and position greater narratives of peace studies, leading to increased agency and action. Because of its theoretical-analytical-productive structure, rhetoric has much to contribute to peace and conflict studies. To better understand this relationship, let us examine how rhetoric can contribute to an issue integral to peace and conflict studies: human rights. In a world in which the means and reach of communication only continue to expand, the transformative effects of communication in a global world surface daily. From haunting images of refugee children face down in the sand to divisive methods of advanced interrogation to intimidating extremist social media campaigns, contemporary understandings of rights and justice are constantly being challenged and modified within the public sphere. Further complicating our understandings, traditional declarations of human rights have given way to public awareness campaigns where education rivals shaming of offenders and campaigns dedicated to increasing rights of protectors. Human rights, consequently, now exists not as static, fixed concept but as “an emerging consensus generated by situated communities that are open to internally and externally generated social criticism” (Hogan, 2015, p. 3). Simply put, we are in an age of multiple forms of persuasion that requires more diverse communication and the need for more dynamic discourse (Babbit & Lutz, 2009). It is under such changing circumstances where participating in human rights discourse on a variety of levels becomes even more important. As Kate Nash (2009) argues, contemporary human rights discourse now occupies a variety of discursive fields (juridicial, governmental, activist, and public) making it more subject to the arts of rhetoric and persuasion (pp. 32-58). Of these fields, the latter sub-field of the ‘mediated public’ is especially relevant to contributing to understandings of human-rights. Having the potential to influence all other sub-fields and connecting to a variety of different voices, the media can be very effective to contemporary conversations: News media – television, radio, newspapers, and increasingly the Internet – bring human rights issues into […] ‘mediated publicness’, the only kind of public life and public debate possible in complex societies […] In the mediated public, human rights are contested and definitions of what human rights are or should be are introduced and consolidated, or emerge and then disappear, or are quite simply rendered invisible and therefore irrelevant. (pp. 50-51). Nash’s understanding invites rhetoricians and activists to contribute to mediated dialogues in order to challenge the “authoritative definitions of human rights” claimed by others (p. 56). Our analytical and persuasive strategies position us perfectly to contribute to a public that is “not democratic” (Nash, 2009, p. 51) and therefore needs participatory agenda and frame setting that rhetoricians and activists can offer. This special issue contributes to public conversations of activism and peace studies, and the authors participate in a variety of ways: interdisciplinarity, educational advocacy, peace work, and by reframing ongoing conversations. By emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of models for peace, Giorgio Gallo shows how peace activists utilize a variety of discourse. Michael Royster reminds us of the importance of activist rhetorics and civil rights discourse. Regarding education and identity, Mubarak Ahmad and Mahsood Shah demonstrate the importance of education to youth interested in creating change. For the classroom, Amy Pason provides concrete practices for teaching students interested in rhetoric, while Kathryn Johnson Gindlesparger provides concrete practices for teaching professionally-oriented undergraduate students. As rhetoric influences practices for on-the-ground peace work, Karim Issifu demonstrates the importance of local context in peace building. Analytically, Evan Hoffman identifies conflict resolution strategies in effective international peace talks. And, Anna Hutcheson demonstrates the importance of personal agency and discourse to peace and peace intervention. Seeking to change existing discourse, Mecke Nagel demonstrates how a rhetoric-centered approach to peace and conflict advocates for direct change in existing practices of incarceration. References Ackerman, J. M., & Coogan, D. J. (2010). The public work of rhetoric: Citizen-scholars and civic engagement. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. (G. Kennedy, Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Babbit, E. F. & Lutz, E. L. (2009). (Eds.). Human rights & conflict resolution in context: Colombia, Sierra Leone, & Northern Ireland. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Berlin, J. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Bowers, J. W., Ochs, D. J., Jensen, R. J., & Schulz, D. P. (2010). The rhetoric of agitation and control (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Brown, G. W. (2009). The power of Saddam Hussein’s war rhetoric. In S. J. Foss, Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (4th ed.), (pp 51-60). Long Grove, IL: Waveland. Burke, K. (1945/1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burke, K. (1950/1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cushman, E. (1996). The rhetorician as agent of social change. College Composition and Communication, 47(1), 7-28. Del Gandio, J. (2008). Rhetoric for radicals: A handbook for 21st century activists. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society. Dunmire, P. L. (2013). “New world coming”: Narratives of the future in US post-cold war national security discourse. In A. Hodges (Ed.), Discourses of war and peace (pp. 23-46). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Flower, L. (2008). Community literacy and the rhetoric of public engagement. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Glodblatt. E. (2008). Because we live here: Sponsoring literacy beyond the college curriculum. New York, NY: Hampton Press. Grabill, J. T. (2001). Community literacy programs and the politics of change. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Hasbrook, M. D. (2011). Intervention and rhetorics of war: Classical insights for contemporary activists. In S. Kahn & J. Lee (Eds.), Activism and rhetoric: Theories and contexts for political engagement (pp. 62-71). New York, NY: Routledge. Hogan, L. (2015). Keeping faith with human rights. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Hodges, A. (Ed.). (2013). Discourses of war and peace. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kahn, S. & Lee, J. (2011). Activism and rhetoric: Theories and contexts for political engagement. New York, NY: Routledge. Juergensmeyer, E. (2011). Conflict and composition: Rhetorical invention, conflict resolution, and critical awareness. Rocky Mountain Review 65(1), 79-96. Lloyd-Jones, R. (2003). Rhetoric and conflict resolution. In T. Enos & K. D. Miller, Beyond postprocess and postmodernism: Essays on the spaciousness of rhetoric (pp. 171-184). Matweh, NJ: Erlbaum. Mathieu, P. (2005). Tactics of hope: The public turn in English composition. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. McComiskey, B. (2000). Teaching composition as a social practice. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Moore, A. S. & Goldberg, E. S. (2015). Teaching human rights in literary and cultural studies. New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America. Nash, K. (2009). The cultural politics of human rights: Comparing the US and UK. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review. 5(1), 34-47. Rhetoricians for Peace. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/Rhetoricians-for-Peace-167408333409192/ Scott, T. (2009). Dangerous writing: Understanding the political economy of composition. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Stewart, C. J., Smith, C. A., & Denton, R. E. (2012). Persuasion and social movements (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weaver, R. (1953/1985). The ethics of rhetoric. Davis, CA: Hermagoras. Welch, N. (2008). Living room: Teaching public writing in a privatized world. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. 
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2017 2017 -> Leadership ohio 2017 -> Ascension Lutheran Church Counter’s Schedule January to December 2017 2017 -> Board of directors juanita Gibbons-Delaney, mha, rn president 390 Stone Castle Pass Atlanta, ga 30331 2017 -> Military History Anniversaries 16 thru 31 January Events in History over the next 15 day period that had U. S. military involvement or impacted in some way on U. S military operations or American interests 2017 -> The Or Shalom Cemetery Community Teaching on related issues of Integral 2017 -> Ford onthult samenwerking met Amazon Alexa en introduceert nieuwe navigatiemogelijkheden van Ford sync® 3 met Applink 2017 -> Start Learn and Increase gk. Question (1) Name the term used for talking on internet with the help of text messege? 2017 -> Press release from 24. 03. 2017 From a Charleston Car to a Mafia Sedan 2017 -> Tage Participants 2017 -> Citi Chicago Debate Championship Varsity and jv previews Download 1.8 Mb. Share with your friends:
|